Until someone has read Darwins 'Origins' they are the mercy of university biology teachers who KNOWINGLY indoctrinate them/evolutionary biology propaganda.

That ncbi article doesn't state that there is no succession. You've only shown that, if there are successions at these major transitions, those successions are difficult to track.I said "(more or less) gradually" because there is both gradualism and puncuated equilibrium.

You have been psy-oped into thinking the lack of evidence for something=evidence for it HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. The very antithesis of science (not laughing at you just the psy-op, its soooo sick, i was brainwashed too though, took a few months of reading the right stuff )

On the other hand, the finding of a bird fossil from the precambrian era would falsify the theory of evolution. You might argue that, even if archeologists found a puzzle piece that didn't fit, they might force it into the puzzle anyway. I know next to nothing about homology, so I can't speak on that any further.

The 'theory' of 'evolution' again is not a 'theory' (not change in gene frequency, or any change in any living thing ever). No it can never be 'falsified' because 1) Its not science to begin with 2) Anything on earth (even absence of evidence as you have illustrated above) can be used as 'evidence' for it

However, genetics provides the test as to whether we are assembling the archeological puzzle pieces correctly or not. For the most part, genetics verifies the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record, which suggests that evolutionary biologists are on the right track.

Genetics/the very existence of DNA proves it never happened, thats the sickest part of the whole thing (BILLIONS of functionally sequenced nucletoide base pairs that given a single letter change may kill someone/give them a disease). 2 weeks of solid reading is all it would take if someone wanted to know the TRUTH about origins though the implications may not agree with atheism (there is no problem scientifically with mankind sharing a common ancestor with mankind, its the implications it has on a personal level).

University biology teachers knowingly omit the complete absence of a genetic mechanism for adding NEW things like biochemical pathways (ie krebs, glycolysis, electron transport chain), organ systems (intestines, livers, kidneys, adrenals, etc). Mutations= mistakes. Hospitals are full of people with mutations dying of cancer and other diseases. Think mutations are 'good'? Go stand out in the sun for a few hours on a hot day and get some 'beneficial' mutations or one could stick their head in the microwave and get some 'beneficial' mutations.

What proofs of creation do you have?

The onus of proof is on the claim contrary to 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' AND every observed law of nature in recorded/written history (6,000 years). The fact we are having this conversation right now proves 'evolution' never happened. I did a link to Sanfords book 'Genetic entropy'.

jinx25 wrote:You have been psy-oped into thinking the lack of evidence for something=evidence for it HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I didn't say it was evidence for evolution, just that it didn't falsify the theory. However, you did make a good point. There are points at which the supposed succession becomes difficult to track, which makes the theory more difficult to falsify.

jinx25 wrote:Genetics/the very existence of DNA proves it never happened, thats the sickest part of the whole thing (BILLIONS of functionally sequenced nucletoide base pairs that given a single letter change may kill someone/give them a disease). 2 weeks of solid reading is all it would take if someone wanted to know the TRUTH about origins though the implications may not agree with atheism (there is no problem scientifically with mankind sharing a common ancestor with mankind, its the implications it has on a personal level).

Then do you have an altertantive explanation as to why genome sequencing results are consistent with inferences based on the fossil record?

Now I will quote one of the linked articles.

bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations,2 so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.

Multicellular organisms aren't genetically homogeneous. A mutating organism will still have some cells that carry more harmful mutations than others. The organism could pass on its beneficial mutation without passing on all of its harmful mutations. On top of that, natural selection is also occurring within our bodies. Within the seminiferous tubules, severely defective cells may simply die off before they can divide (pass on their mutations). Thus the worst mutations will have less chances of being carried all the way to fertilization.

This does imply that cancererous cells would have better chances of passing on their DNA, but keep in mind that cancer has late onset.

jinx25 wrote:University biology teachers knowingly omit the complete absence of a genetic mechanism for adding NEW things like biochemical pathways (ie krebs, glycolysis, electron transport chain), organ systems (intestines, livers, kidneys, adrenals, etc). Mutations= mistakes. Hospitals are full of people with mutations dying of cancer and other diseases. Think mutations are 'good'? Go stand out in the sun for a few hours on a hot day and get some 'beneficial' mutations or one could stick their head in the microwave and get some 'beneficial' mutations.

Mutations can be good, bad or neutral. It appears that most mutations are neutral, while the fewest are beneficial. However, a neutral mutation can become beneficial (or detrimental) at a later time, when conditions may be different. One important type of mutation is gene duplication. A duplicated gene creates redundancy that may, through additional mutations, create new traits, organs, etc. This is one way in which new genetic material is created - one of the ignorant criticisms that creationists make.

jinx25 wrote:The onus of proof is on the claim contrary to 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' AND every observed law of nature in recorded/written history (6,000 years). The fact we are having this conversation right now proves 'evolution' never happened. I did a link to Sanfords book 'Genetic entropy'.

The onus of proof is on the person that makes the claim. Science has lots of evidence for evolution but there is no evidence for any deity. To say that "The fact we are having this conversation right now proves 'evolution' never happened" is logically invalid.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."Theodosius Dobzhansky"Most people who hate the idea of evolution do so because if it was working properly, they'd be dead."Anonymous

You wrote "People dont seem to realise the complete absence of a genetic mechanism for adding NEW organ systems, biochemical pathways etc etc."

Putting aside the fact that your wording here and in other threads demonstrates scientific illiteracy, Google and then read this "GENETIC DIVERSITY AND DISEASE RESISTANCE IN LEAF-CUTTINGANT SOCIETIES" and then bring forth your argument against it with your research and/or sources from peer reviewed science journals that support it.

You also wrote "'Evolution' has damaged young peoples ability to think (Mutations are mistakes)."

But according to YOU that's impossible because, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, "Evolution: The lie" and again "shows neo-darwinian 'evolution' to be a myth". So, according to you evolution is a lie and a myth but yet is the cause of mutations? How so if not true? Please explain this contradiction in your thinking.

You wrote "People dont seem to realise the complete absence of a genetic mechanism for adding NEW organ systems, biochemical pathways etc etc."

Putting aside the fact that your wording here and in other threads demonstrates scientific illiteracy, Google and then read this "GENETIC DIVERSITY AND DISEASE RESISTANCE IN LEAF-CUTTINGANT SOCIETIES" and then bring forth your argument against it with your research and/or sources from peer reviewed science journals that support it.

Did you read this article??? It does not say ANYTHING about adding new genetic information. It proves that greater genetic diversity leads to better chances of survival...

I've read about have of it and you're correct. However, jinx25 has written before on this forum that evolution decreases diversity. I should have addressed it at appropriate thread. In any case, this user doesn't believe in evolution and I also wanted to see how he would counter the content of the paper.

I meant to say I read *half the article. I have now read the entire article and, if you could be so kind, can you help me understand a term? What does "allotransfer" mean? I can't find a def for it. In the article it's used in this senence:

" Susceptibleindividuals may beneﬁt from the defense mechanisms of resistant individuals, for example through allogrooming or theallotransfer of antimicrobial defenses."

As far as I am aware Allotransfer is the process by which some cellular/molecular agent is transferred from one subject to the other. In this case it would be the transfer of the antimicrobial agent from an ant that produces it to one that does not.